Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bangalore District Court

Got Information That The Accused ... vs Counsel. During The Course Of ... on 7 January, 2023

                             1

KABC030741252018




  IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
            MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU.


            Dated this the 7th day of January 2023


               Present : Sri.R.Mahesha.
                               BAL.LLB.,
                         IX Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.

                    CC No.27358/2018

1.C.C.No.                     27358/2018

2.Date of offence             7/08/2016

3.Complainant                 State by Shivaji Nagar Police
                              Station.
4.Accused                     1.Habeen Khan @ Habeen
                               S/o.Late Ameer Khan,
                               Aged about 42 years,
                               R/No.21/2, J P Nagar,
                               9th Phase, Bengaluru.

                              2. Chandrashekar @ Chandra
                                 S/o. Shankar Rao,
                                R/No.13, X Cross, Vidyagiri,
                                Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru.
                               2

5. Offences                   U/Sec.52(A), 68(A) of Copyright
  complained of               Act & Sec.292 of IPC.

6.Plea                        Accused No.1 & 2 pleaded not
                              guilty.

7.Final Order                 Accused No.1 & 2 are
                              acquitted.

8.Date of Order               07/01/2023.


                          JUDGMENT

The Police Inspector of Shivajinagar Police Station, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/Sec.52(A), 68(A) of Copyright Act & Sec.292 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 7.08.2016 at about 10.00 am complainant got information that the accused persons were found in possession and selling of duplicate DVDs and CDs of different languages i.e. Hindi, 3 Tamil, Telugu and English etc and also obscene films to the public at No.18, Digital Video Palace, Dharmaraj Koil Street, Russel Market, Shivajinagar and also at No.21, Chandani Chowk, Choudary Complex, Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from CW.4 and cheated to the public and also company and thereby violated the copyright of the company. In this regard, CW.1 lodged first information statement and based on the same FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.125/2016 for the offences punishable u/Sec.52(A), 68(A) of Copyright Act & Sec.292 of IPC. Thereafter, CW.1 along with CW.2 to CW.8 rushed to the spot and conducted raid and seized the alleged duplicate DVDs and CDs by drawing panchanama. Thereafter, PI completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/Sec. 52(A), 68(A) of Copyright Act & Sec.292 of IPC.

3. After filing of the charge sheet this Court has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable u/Sec. 52(A), 4 68(A) of Copyright Act & Sec.292 of IPC and issued summons to the accused. They have appeared before this Court through their counsel and obtained bail. The copy of the charge sheet has been furnished to the accused as per Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides the charge has been framed and read over to accused. But they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case has been posted for prosecution evidence.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined only one witness as PW.1 and 5 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Thereafter, the statement of the accused No.1 and 2 u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. They have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. They have not chosen to adduce their defence evidence.

5. I have heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the entire oral evidence and documents placed on record.

6. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:

(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 7.08.2016 at about 10.00 am complainant got information that the accused persons were found in possession and selling of duplicate DVDs and CDs of different languages i.e. Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and English etc and also obscene films to the public at No.18, Digital Video Palace, Dharmaraj Koil Street, Ressel Market, Shivajinagar and also at No.21, Chandani Chowk, Choudary Complex, Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from CW.4 and cheated to the public and also company and thereby committed an offences punishable under Sec.

52(A), 68(A) of Copyright Act & Sec.292 of IPC. ? (2) What order ?

7. My findings to the above points are as under:

Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following :

REASONS

8. Point No.1 :- The prosecution has alleged that on 7.08.2016 at about 10.00 am complainant got information 6 that the accused persons were found in possession and selling of duplicate DVDs and CDs of different languages i.e. Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and English etc and also obscene films to the public at No.18, Digital Video Palace, Dharmaraj Koil Street, Ressel Market, Shivajinagar and also at No.21, Chandani Chowk, Choudary Complex, Bengaluru, without obtaining any licence or permission from CW.4 and cheated to the public and also company. Therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. As already stated supra, the prosecution has examined only one witness as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1.

9. PW.1 Sri.Arun Senior Executive has deposed before this Court that on 27/04/2018 Shivajinagar police called him to check the DVDs original or duplicate and asked to give report. Further he deposed that he received the said DVDs and verified the same and found that no sensor board certificate, no price, and not found any distributors 7 name and address and he gave report as per Ex.P.1 to the police on 27/04/2018 and DVDs and photos are marked as per Ex.P.2 to 5. He has been cross-examined by the accused counsel. During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that pm 15/4/2018 Shivajinagar PSI gave written notice to him and he did not verified the CDs and not gave any report to the police and he denied other formal suggestions made by accused during the course of cross-examination.

10. It is relevant to note that the prosecution has been cited CW.10 out of which the prosecution has able to examined CW.4 as PW.1, other prosecution witnesses i.e. CW.1 to CW.3, CW.5 to CW.10 presence could not be secured in spite of issued process of summons, warrant through local police officers and higher police officers. Therefore, they are dropped out on 07/10/2022 for non- securing them well in time. Therefore, there is no supporting evidence from the evidence of PW.1. Therefore, 8 the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.

11. Point No.2: For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 52(A), 68(A) of Copyright Act & Sec.292 of IPC.

shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically.

Item No.1 to 16 shown in PF No.45/2016 shall be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period is over.

(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 7 th day of January 2023).

(R.Mahesha) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:

PW.1: Arun.

List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:

Ex.P.1 :      Report
Ex.P.2 to 5:  CDs & DVDs

List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:

- NIL -

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:

- NIL -

List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:

- NIL -

IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bengaluru.

Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/Sec. 52(A), 68(A) of Copyright Act & Sec.292 of IPC.

shall continue for a period of two months from the date of this order and thereafter same shall stands cancelled automatically. Item No.1 to 16 shown in PF No.45/2016 shall be destroyed as worthless after the appeal period is over.

IX ACMM, Bengaluru.